[
Ecocentric Blog ]

Really? Shale Gas Fracking Uses a Lot of Water? Really!

Fracking uses water, and a lot of it; but what might that water use mean for you and your community? See the infographic below to learn more.

Do you know where North America’s largest shale-gas hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations are? Texas, Wyoming or Pennsylvania? No. It’s Canada’s Horn River Shale Formation, located in northeastern British Columbia. Performing that frack job is oil and gas production giant Apache Corporation, which lauded its own immense size and scale: “When all was said and done, the completions team performed 274 successful fracs on the 16-well pad, using 50,000 tons of sand and 980,000 cubic meters of water.” (That’s over 250 million gallons of water!)

Apache and its partner, Encana, made sure to “celebrate” this achievement of oil and gas engineering within the company, while touting its prowess throughout the industry and the Canadian government.

But Apache representatives were sedate during an October 2011 hearing before the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Water and Power. During the hearing, Apache executive Dr. Cal Cooper showed greater interest in the more typical fracking operations that take place in the United States, ones that are much smaller than in the Canadian super-frack job.

What explains Apache’s change in tune before the U.S. Senate panel? In a word: water.

Water, the Essential Ingredient

Water is the main ingredient in fracking fluid, comprising over 99 percent of the total with the remainder a mix of undisclosed, proprietary chemicals. The quantity of water required for a typical frack job is around 4.5 million gallons, of which a substantial amount — approximately 10 to 40 percent — “flows back” to the surface as toxic wastewater. That’s right, 4.5 million gallons are pumped into the ground and up to a million gallons of toxic water flow back up (or the amount of contaminated water equal to the annual water use of up to seven households)!

With so much water involved in fracking, it makes sense that the American public is apprehensive. National polls show that ensuring adequate supplies of clean freshwater is an overwhelming environmental concern. No wonder the oil and gas industry is sensitive about fracking’s water use and have sought to downplay the importance of water by essentially saying, “Don’t worry; it’s not really that much.” But such niceties don’t satisfy critics, so industry has to find ways to justify its heavy water use.

One of the industry’s most common strategies is to emphasize how fracking water use is some fraction of the one percent slice of the “mining, oil and gas” industries' compared to dominant American water withdrawers like thermoelectric power plants, agriculture and public water supplies). Another common justification is what gas giant Chesapeake Energy does by taking the 4.5 million gallon figure and comparing it to other water use examples. For example, drawing comparisons to the amount of water needed to supply New York City for seven minutes or irrigate 7.5 acres of corn in a season.

But such standard comparisons between fracking and other water uses must be drying up because Apache’s Cooper offered a new, more sophisticated line of argument in his testimony:

…[I]t seems especially pertinent for this committee to consider the water budget of energy from shale gas compared with other sources…Natural gas, from both shale gas and conventional reservoirs requires less water per MMBtu of energy generated from combustion than any other common fuel. (PDF)

Hmm. Water requirements per heat energy unit (MMBtu)? Fuel-type comparisons? Cooper’s favorable argument for shale gas is compelling because in such a life cycle analysis — where the entire process is assessed from extraction to power plant combustion — water requirements are lower in comparison to certain fuel types. In addition, the popularity of natural gas relies, in part, on its reputation as a “bridge fuel” — the fossil fuel that will lead to a renewable energy future because it’s cleaner burning, emits less greenhouse gas and uses water less intensively in certain steps of the process. However, substantial debate exists about its presumed life cycle environmental benefits. Cooper conveniently avoids real and legitimate water resource impacts associated with fracking, as summarized in the list below:

Quality over quantity. In other words, if water is contaminated by the fracking process, then it is either taken out of use or costs money, energy and even more water to remediate the situation. Externalities anyone?

Cumulative impacts. The number of gas wells is expected to increase over time. More wells mean more water.

Recycling is not a panacea. This is mainly because the waste that accumulates in recycled fracking wastewater is never eliminated but concentrated, and ultimately requires disposal. Plus, recycling wastewater requires — guess what? — more water, and more energy.

Water is consumed. Much of the water used for drilling or fracking is taken out of the water cycle entirely when it remains underground after injection.

The nature of water. Even as part of the global water cycle, water is experienced locally and is site-specific.

The local dimension of water undermines industry’s water use claims

Cooper openly acknowledges that “[w]ater is a local resource and withdrawal must be managed on a local basis to ensure that the ecological health of riparian systems and the needs of other major users are met.” He notes the historically severe drought in Texas and Oklahoma, where oil and gas companies had to adjust their fracking methods because of decreased water availability and competition with other users, like farmers. This is a constant concern throughout arid western states with active shale gas plays, like Colorado and Wyoming.

If a well site has inadequate water resources, a fairly common problem, water has to be transported via tanker trucks to fill impoundments over the course of hundreds or thousands of visits. Finally, there is the thorny issue of toxic fracking wastewater and its storage, reuse and disposal.

Local differences can explain, in part, the differences between how Apache represented itself regarding the Canadian super-frack operations versus the restrained tone of Dr. Cooper’s testimony before the Senate panel. The Horn River Shale is located in a remote section of British Columbia, far from any population centers. Additionally, the enormous volume of water used for the super-fracking was done with brackish water unsuitable for drinking, and wasn’t a direct draw on freshwater supplies.

On the other hand, fracking in the United States, especially in the Marcellus Shale region, tends to occur in more densely populated areas where it can come into conflict with local water uses like drinking and irrigation. As fracking spurs the proliferation of natural gas wells around the U.S., water-related issues will continue to impact water quantity and quality for both ground and surface water. These local impacts are where the true fault lines lie in the struggle over fracking.

The debate over whether the millions of gallons used for a frack job is outsized might be appropriate within a larger discussion of national water use. But the discussion about water resource impacts of fracking must be a local one. In changing the unit of analysis from the water needed for drilling and fracking at the well site to a more general “water for fuel-type,” Cooper’s argument bypasses localized impacts, where they are felt most intensely and where water use is amplified. Wherever you go, 4.5 million gallons is a lot of water, particularly if in your backyard. That’s a fact that doesn’t change no matter how the industry attempts to minimize it.

Learn More

It takes a significant amount of water to create energy. Water is used to cool steam electric power plants - fueled by coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power - and is required to generate hydropower. Water is also used in great quantities during f

Ecocentric’s Kyle Rabin is moderating a panel at the Brooklyn Food Conference today on the interrelated nature of food, water and energy systems, so we thought we’d share some facts with our readers who aren’t able to attend.

Tags

Responses to "Really? Shale Gas Fracking Uses a Lot of Water? Really!"
The views and opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the Ecocentric Blog or GRACE Communications Foundation.

Liz

06.24.2013

How can I find out if the water tank trucks are dumping into our water supply at one of the two city reservoirs is OK? Our city already authorized that the drilling companies get fresh, supposedly untreated water from our lower reservoir at the old, shut-down plant which has direct flow into both reservoirs still, and into the local streams. I have had this question for a long time, haven't had positive response from the city personnel (they have all quit, walked out several months ago)and it seems none of my neighbors care too much. Our town has turned into a rental paradise for low income residents and remains hometown to a scattered few old timers, including our family.

Liz

10.13.2012

How can I find out if the water tank trucks are dumping into our water supply at one of the two city reservoirs is OK? Our city already authorized that the drilling companies get fresh, supposedly untreated water from our lower reservoir at the old, shu

Kai Olson-Sawyer

07.17.2012

Thanks for the comment, Randy. You're right that there is water/steam produced with natural gas combustion, but the main point of my post is that by it's very nature, water is part of the hydrological cycle yet is experienced as a localized phenomenon. He

Randy

07.02.2012

A recent well drilled by encana in Michigan used 140,000 barrels of water for its frack. If this well produces 1 BCF of gas which is an extremely low estimate, when the methane is burned it will create 354,838 barrels of water. This is a net +214,838 barrels of new, pure, fresh water. This does not take into consideration the water that is recovered and recycled from the frack process. So by fracking, producing, and burning natural gas you are actually adding water to our environment. It’s amazing what happens when hyrogen and oxygen combine.

Kai Olson-Sawyer

05.18.2012

Thanks for your question, Anon. In short, the amount of water used varies greatly. As shown above, you can get the 2005 USGS water withdrawal estimates for a sector-level overview: http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/ What’s necessary for agricultural irrigation is a perfect example of the many variables that make water such a localized and site-specific resource, and can include such variables as geography, climate, precipitation levels, soil type, crop type, etc. Regardless, here are some estimates. Chesapeake likes to use this: 4.5 million gallon water = 7.5 acres of corn irrigated in a season Another from the Imperial County Farm Bureau: Imperial County agriculture uses an average of 5.6 acre-feet of water per acre per year. 1.8 million gallons water = 1 acre http://icfb.net/countyag.html

Kai Olson-Sawyer

04.05.2012

Thanks for weighing in, Aaron. You’re right as to how the eastern flow of the shale boom runs into population centers where quality of life problems start to occur in communities. Not only is being next door to an industrial process and all that it entails foreign to residents, but also to the oil and gas companies who are used to being accommodated and are experiencing unexpected yet deserved blowback. No matter how much water is being used in a frack job, it sure is a lot when it affects you at home. Shout out to Aaron Mintzes and Earthworks on their efforts to explain the reality of hydraulic fracturing to the general public.

Aaron

04.04.2012

Hey Kai, I went to that hearing and was also struck by Cooper’s conciliatory tone. Four or five million gallons sounds like a lot, though you guys both point out that’s not much compared to other sources- still I often hear a lot of industry folks speak in quantity terms like seconds of river flow. You’re right about quality over quantity. Especially, quality of life. As the shale boom moves East toward population centers, industry operations displace residents. Check it out: Video documentary of the Eviction of the Riverdale Mobile Home Community. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-765592 Warm regards, Aaron

Leave a Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on topic. You represent that comments submitted do not infringe upon anyone's rights including copyright, trademark, privacy or other personal or proprietary rights.

We need to make sure you're a human and not a spambot. Please answer the following question. What is 18 + 6 equal to?

By submitting a comment here you grant us a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/website in attribution.